> "is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct"
That sounds so broad. Doesn’t it include lobbyists? voters who threaten to vote out a party if they don’t do as they like? What if the government is trump 2.0 and is acting tyrannical? What are the limitations?
The terror stuff covers it from a negative perspective, from a more positive perspective the extensive legal documentation and case law for ethics might clear up a lot of definition questions, with a simple inversion applied.
For example, the DOE ethics of government conduct employee handbook lists 14 principles per Executive Order 12674 and principle number 11 of ethical good government conduct is:
"Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities."
So... if ethics executive order specifically defines good government conduct as disclosure of abuse and corruption, it seems legally realistic to argue that the logical inversion would be terrorism would be preventing disclosure of abuse and corruption.
So there is a very realistic legal argument that the government employees hounding Assange are clearly acting as terrorists, and he's the good guy, which is the whole point of the long form article, the deep state may regret essentially making fools of themselves. So is the deep state so strongly in power they don't have to care about making fools of themselves, or ...
That sounds so broad. Doesn’t it include lobbyists? voters who threaten to vote out a party if they don’t do as they like? What if the government is trump 2.0 and is acting tyrannical? What are the limitations?